Inland Common-Law PR Sponsorship – Questions

[computerscience23]

Hello,

I am planning to sponsor my partner under the Inland Common-Law PR Sponsorship. Here are a few details about our situation:

• I became a PR in April 2024 (received my ITA in December 2023) under the CEC class.
• We started living together in March 2024, at which point my partner ended their lease. At the time, I was co-leasing an apartment with a friend and we never signed any official agreement with my partner, nor did they update any official records to reflect this address. Our only proof from this period consists of monthly e-transfers from my partner to me for rent, as well as chat messages and photos. We lived there until May 2024 (about three months).
• In June 2024, I purchased a home and we moved in there. Since then, we have continued living there, with solid proof of cohabitation, including the same address on CRA records, bank accounts, and statements showing my partner paying rent each month to me.

I plan to sponsor my partner for PR after June 2025, given that we lack strong cohabitation proof between March and May 2024. They have their work permit until November 2025. I have a couple of questions:

• We traveled to our home country for 3–4 weeks together (November 2024) for our small engagement ceremony, taking the same flights to and from Canada. However, while there, we stayed at separate locations within the same country. During this time, our primary residence remained in Canada, and we continued paying utilities and rent (my partner paid rent to me for that month as well). We have photos together with our families for the ceremony as additional proof. Would this trip pose any issues?
• When I applied for PR, I listed my marital status as single, since we had not yet been living together when I received my eCOPR (April 2024). Is this okay, or could this cause complications?

Are both of these things okay? Any suggestions or things to look out for? Thanks in advance! @Miss bee @scylla @Ponga @armoured @CanGoldDigger @canuck_in_uk any thoughts please?

 

[armoured]

No issue with you having applied as single.

My guess would be that the vacation is not a significant issue, but a bit longer than the usual and I don't know how they would handle.

Easy solution: marry and apply now, you'll have good relationship backing to date. And it'll get done quicker.

 

[computerscience23]

No issue with you having applied as single.

My guess would be that the vacation is not a significant issue, but a bit longer than the usual and I don't know how they would handle.

Easy solution: marry and apply now, you'll have good relationship backing to date. And it'll get done quicker.

Thanks for your reply. I was considering marrying as well but I thought marriage might appear for the sake of getting a PR especially if we do a court marriage in Canada.

Also, I realized that travel history (IMM 5562) is not required as per the document checklist since my partner resides in Canada. I am curious how IRCC even checks for traveling outside of Canada during cohabitation. Our primary residence has always been Canada throughout the cohabitation with all utilities bills paid as usual. Do you happen to know anything in regards to this?

 

[armoured]

Thanks for your reply. I was considering marrying as well but I thought marriage might appear for the sake of getting a PR especially if we do a court marriage in Canada.

I think that's overthinking. If anything, residing together without getting married would be more likely to be a way to avoid (some of) the legal responsibilities of marriage. The issue of a civil marriage without traditional is very important when it's an arranged marriage, and basically not an issue for couples cohabiting (IMO).

More to the point: common law is (or can be) a somewhat strict interpretation of whether there is (in fact) 12 months of continuous cohabitation. That's more of a risk than some rather complicated idea that a legal marriage is fictitious (in my opinion).

The only room in there is whether the absence is considered just a short vacation or not.

Also, I realized that travel history (IMM 5562) is not required as per the document checklist since my partner resides in Canada. I am curious how IRCC even checks for traveling outside of Canada during cohabitation. Our primary residence has always been Canada throughout the cohabitation with all utilities bills paid as usual. Do you happen to know anything in regards to this?

They have access to entry/exit records (for the principal applicant at least). You should assume they would check. And - if you decide to apply as common law - would strongly suggest including info about your joint travel. (Living apart there still an issue though.)

Your decision of course. My opinion is that if your (over)thinking above was the primary reason you were avoiding a court marriage, then just go ahead and do it; you can apply earlier which will save some time. (You can go ahead with whatever customary or traditional marriage you like whenever). Just do invite whatever friends/family are available to attend your court marriage (or an event after) - not a big issue if many can't attend because a long way away.

Don't advise of any plans to have a future traditional marriage - that looks like you think the civil marriage doesn't 'count'. Only after you do it (if you do) and the PR still not completed.

 

[computerscience23]

Thank you @armoured for such a comprehensive reply. It makes a lot of sense.

They have access to entry/exit records (for the principal applicant at least). You should assume they would check. And - if you decide to apply as common law - would strongly suggest including info about your joint travel. (Living apart there still an issue though.)

Good point. We were planning on disclosing this in the letter of explanation anyways. We were thinking of mentioning that we specifically traveled to our home country for the small engagement ceremony with our families present, which was indeed the reason of travel and we have enough pictures (including full family pictures) to support this.

Your decision of course. My opinion is that if your (over)thinking above was the primary reason you were avoiding a court marriage, then just go ahead. (You can go ahead with whatever customary or traditional marriage you like whenever). Just do invite whatever friends/family are available to attend your court marriage (or an event after) - not a big issue if many can't attend because a long way away.

If we were to go with the court marriage option in Canada, then our parents won't be able to attend the wedding (which I okay as we're doing to do a traditional one later; of course, not going to mention this in the application). But yes, few friends will be there. Do you think that will be okay? For example, having 5-10 people other than us for a small court marriage?

 

[armoured]

But yes, few friends will be there. Do you think that will be okay? For example, having 5-10 people other than us for a small court marriage?

I would think that is normal, yes.

A comment that's not directed at you, but related to your concerns above: sometimes applicants look at this like you mentioned above, that getting married to their actual romantic partner with whom they are cohabiting might appear to be a marriage of convenience because it helps their spousal immigration application.

Or as you put it (not uncommonly) "might appear for the sake of getting a PR especially if we do a court marriage in Canada."

But the test of a marriage of convenience (or marriage fraud) is if its sole purpose is [for immigration purposes.]

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/protect-fraud/marriage-fraud.html

Now it's reasonable to be concerned about how it might look (as you put it).

But it's most emphatically not automatically a marriage of convenience because the timing has been moved up or you changed the format (from big traditional to civil/court wedding). Including doing so for reasons related to immigration - as long as the main/underlying reason is that it's a real relationship.

Or put differently: just because being actually married instead of common law is somewhat more convenient (with respect to immigration) does not make it a 'marriage of convenience'. The words overlap somewhat but 'marriage of convenience' is a fixed expression with specific meaning (not everything that's convenient is '... of convenience.')

An example/analogy for illustration: imagine a couple in Canada that's been common law for decades, and then one gets a job offer in a country that will only give 'spousal visas' to a legally married spouse. So they get married. Clearly it's not a marriage of convenience; even if they did get married 'for immigration purposes', that's not the sole purpose of the relationship.

Obviously a different situation but nothing wrong (or on the face of it suspicious) about a couple that reside together and not yet common law getting married early because it helps them deal with a specific issue. It's still a genuine marriage.

Circumstances and details matter though, hence your evidence of residing together is still important. And you'll still have to wait ofr the actual marriage certificate.

 

[computerscience23]

@armoured, out of curiosity about the common-law partner sponsorship route, I have a question.

My partner and I moved in together in March 2024, and they stayed at the place I was renting until May 2024. After that, we moved into the place I bought. My concern is that we don’t have much proof of cohabitation for those three months (March–May 2024). The only evidence we have is my partner’s monthly e-transfers to me for rent contributions and text/email exchanges with their previous landlord about ending their lease.

I was thinking it would be best to apply after June 2025, as we will have solid cohabitation proof from June 2024 to June 2025. However, I believe we should state that we have been living together since March 2024 rather than June 2024. Initially, I considered just saying June 2024 because of the limited proof from the first three months. But now, I feel that while waiting until June 2025 to apply is still a good idea, it makes more sense to state that we started living together in March 2024.

Would you agree?

 

[armoured]

Yes. Stick with facts. As long as you have 12 months residing together that you can document when you apply. So to me your June 2025 makes sense.

(Not as much sense as getting married and applying earlier, but that's your choice.)

 

[computerscience23]

Yes. Stick with facts. As long as you have 12 months residing together that you can document when you apply. So to me your June 2025 makes sense.

Yeah, I meant to ask—although we're applying after June 2025, should we state in the application that we've been cohabiting since March 2024 or June 2024? I want to be truthful and say March 2024, even though we have stronger proof starting from June 2024.

So, we’ll apply in June 2025 and declare that we’ve been living together since March 2024. If the officer finds the proof from March to May 2024 insufficient, we should still be fine because June 2024 to June 2025 covers the required 12 months. Does this make sense to you?

(Not as much sense as getting married and applying earlier, but that's your choice.)

I agree with you and we are exploring this route as well.

 

[armoured]

Yeah, I meant to ask—although we're applying after June 2025, should we state in the application that we've been cohabiting since March 2024 or June 2024? I want to be truthful and say March 2024, even though we have stronger proof starting from June 2024.

So, we’ll apply in June 2025 and declare that we’ve been living together since March 2024. If the officer finds the proof from March to May 2024 insufficient, we should still be fine because June 2024 to June 2025 covers the required 12 months. Does this make sense to you?

Yes. That's what I meant. If one were in this situation and really really wanted to make it clear, just a short note of explanation eg "we've been residing together since [date] but have only limited evidence for the [period]; but we have also resided continuously together from [period] for which see [evidence].

Again, to extent there's concern (which I am not certain about) it's more the month away where by own admission you were not residing together.

 

[canuck78]

On this forum many who have the strongest cases and are the most organized tend to be some of the most concerned.